Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: acpi based pci gap calculation - v3 | From | Alok Kataria <> | Date | Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:52:48 -0700 |
| |
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 14:50 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Monday, July 21, 2008 10:59 am Alok Kataria wrote: > > Hi Jesse, > > > > Did you get a chance to try this patch on your box. Let me know what are > > the values you get now. > > Here's the dmesg from my box with the ACPI gap stuff applied. > > I'm still more inclined to TJ's approach though; it should give us a lot more > space for PCI devices; though you're right that avoiding conflicts is > definitely important too...
Hi Jesse,
Thanks for sending the log.
In the log that you sent me, please note the following debug messages ------- E820_DEBUG: Searching for gap between (0x00000000 - 0x100000000) E820_DEBUG: Found gap starting at 0xbf000000 size 0x40f00000 Allocating PCI resources starting at c0000000 (gap: bf000000:40f00000) -------
This is the gap that was allocated by walking just the e820_map
With my changes we query the _CRS resource and get following info ------ ACPI_DEBUG start_addr 0xf8000000 gapsize 0x00400000 address_length 0x06b00000 end_addr is 0xfeb00000 E820_DEBUG: Searching for gap between (0xf8000000 - 0xfeb00000) E820_DEBUG: Found gap at start starting at 0x100000000 size 0x07f00000 ACPI_DEBUG start_addr 0xbf000000 gapsize 0x07f00000 address_length 0x31000000 end_addr is 0xf0000000 E820_DEBUG: Searching for gap between (0xbf000000 - 0xf0000000) E820_DEBUG: Found gap starting at 0xbf000000 size 0x31000000 ------
So there are 2 producer regions one from [0xBF000000 - 0xF0000000] and another from [0xF8000000 - 0xFEB00000]. That means BIOS has reserved the area from [0xF0000000 - 0xF7FFFFFF] for some other resource. If you look a little below in the log there is this
---- system 00:01: iomem range 0xf0000000-0xf7ffffff has been reserved ----
So the gap that we had calculated first i.e. from e820_setup_gap did contain a collision i.e. though a resource was reserved from [0xf0000000 - 0xf7ffffff] our gap calculation doesn't take that into account. My patch fixes this issue.
So, IMHO this is a BUG and should be fixed. Please let me know your views.
Thanks, Alok
| |